Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:24:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1516 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes: • <snip a lot>
> > Dictionary.com:
> >
> > 1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an
> > idea, or a thing.
> > 2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See
>
> #2 applies to yourself, and you are stretching #1 to apply to me and then
> are making the erroneus conclusion that they are equivalent. You further
> listing below does not support your assertation, and the further one I
> provided also doesn't.
Whoa... where do you draw the conclusion that #2 applies to me? I *really*
think you're coming at this with a fairly large prejudice against "faith" in
any form. Words can have different meanings in different contexts, and I am in
no way trying to equate two different meanings of a word. "room & board" and
"wooden board" imply different meanings of board, yes?
I would, in fact, hold that the #2 is extraneous in the face of #1. The first
definition doesn't differentiate between confident belief with proof or
confident belief without proof.
> > The definition that runs closest to my own understanding of the word is
> > dictionary.com's #1.
<snip>
> End paste. Note 1, 2 and 3. So no, I don't agree with you definition at
> all unless you want to qualify that yours is a faith system without logical
> proof and mine is a faith system with logical proof. This is the same as
> saying NO, they are NOT equivalent. The whole thing you are trying to imply
> is that ultimately evolution is based on faith and not logical proof and
> therefore no different than faith in God, or creationism. To clear things
> up in the future, lets refer to that which doesn't depend on logical proof
> and that which does and avoid the word faith instead of playing this
> semantic game.
OK. Again, you're assuming things that I haven't said, done, or even implied.
Find where I've argued against evolution. PLEASE find it, because I'll start
believing in miracles. I feel that evolution is currently the most feasable
explanation for life happening, and certainly is much more sensible inherently
than creation arguments. But that has diddly squat to do with what we've been
talking about. (Ok, the thread's been erroniously named for a while)
What I am trying to state (no implications at all, thanks) is that at some
level, everything that we "know" as true is in fact believed as true, because
it may be overturned or changed. Anyone who is not constantly challanging
every aspect of the world around them (99.999% of people, including me) is
operating under assumptions, choosing to accept what they sense, and what they
think. Given the sheer volume of information available today, the vast
majority of what we do not directly experience goes unchallanged because it's
not worth our time to challange. We either don't believe it, or we trust (that
might be a less hot-button word) that constancy of environment applies, and
things are as they seem. Most people, when not faced with extraordinary
claims, are credulous.
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Wrong. This makes the presumption that I don't have religious faith (note I have not lined up with the atheists). As to the other point, it may not apply to you personally, just the approach you are arguing. (...) Yes, that's my point. Faith (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) #2 applies to yourself, and you are stretching #1 to apply to me and then are making the erroneus conclusion that they are equivalent. You further listing below does not support your assertation, and the further one I provided also doesn't. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
